Kata-te-jime vs. Okuri-eri-jime

As a learning judoka I would love some clarification on the subject of Kata-te-jime vs. Okuri-eri-jime.

During the Tre Torri summer clinic in Sarnano (Italy) this summer I observed an discussion Hiroshi Katanishi-sensei (7.dan) had with the other notable sensei's. They where discussing the difference in classification of the two above mentioned shime-waza. Katanishi-sensei said that the Kodokan wants to simplify ne-waza technique classifications and that chokes from the lapel using the inside of your hand (thumb side, palm down) is Okuri-eri-jime while using the outside (pinkyfinger-side, palm down) is Kata-te-jime. Which would mean that the unofficial Koshi-jime, jogoku-jime etc. chokes using only the one hand is classified as Okuri-eri-jime as long as the choke is applied from the inside of the hand. I was under the impression up until now that okuri-eri-jime needed two hands to apply the choke from both lapels, but now it appears that most chokes using one hand is actually okuri-eri-jime. I've made a photo below to explain my thoughts.

I would love for you fine people to help me clarify this subject, thanks

If I understand you correctly, that would mean that Nami Jūji-jime would become Kata-te-jime and that Gyaku Jūji-jime would be Okuri-eri-jime, since your using the outside and inside of the wrist respectively. That makes no sense to me and it certainly would not simplify anything just cause more confusion.

_________________“I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.” ... Epicurus at Sen. Lucil, 29.10

Ryvai wrote:As a learning judoka I would love some clarification on the subject of Kata-te-jime vs. Okuri-eri-jime.

During the Tre Torri summer clinic in Sarnano (Italy) this summer I observed an discussion Hiroshi Katanishi-sensei (7.dan) had with the other notable sensei's. They where discussing the difference in classification of the two above mentioned shime-waza. Katanishi-sensei said that the Kodokan wants to simplify ne-waza technique classifications and that chokes from the lapel using the inside of your hand (thumb side, palm down) is Okuri-eri-jime while using the outside (pinkyfinger-side, palm down) is Kata-te-jime. Which would mean that the unofficial Koshi-jime, jogoku-jime etc. chokes using only the one hand is classified as Okuri-eri-jime as long as the choke is applied from the inside of the hand. I was under the impression up until now that okuri-eri-jime needed two hands to apply the choke from both lapels, but now it appears that most chokes using one hand is actually okuri-eri-jime. I've made a photo below to explain my thoughts.

I would love for you fine people to help me clarify this subject, thanks

Firstly, I have not personally heard Katanishi-sensei say anything, so it is important that what I am going to say is not a judgement of what Katanishi-sensei said, but of the words here relayed by you, which may or may not be identical to what he said.

In any case, nothing of what you say makes any sense. The two terms you mention katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime are in fact crystal clear. What you suggest, is not at all a simplification but seems some crutch for someone who does no speak Japanese and who does not understand the terms, but instead attempts to or has to memorize them. When you have to memorize something you don't understand then any kind of nonsensical construction that helps visualize the concept, even if completely wrong, helps memorization. Here's an even clearer example of what I am describing. Many, many years ago, long before I have the knowledge I hold today, we were all told by senior sensei in the West (who of course did not speak a word of Japanese, and whose seniority solely existed in the fact that they had been around longer than us, had more grey hair and held a higher dan-rank no matter how little they knew), that in the fourth movement of itsutsu-no-kata tori throws a net over uke. This made the movement simple to understand, and even to this day, at least of those who aren't yet 6 feet under and still teach judo, many teach that nonsense, and still have no understanding of what it is they do. In this case you propose, I would simply say this: what do the terms katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime really mean ?

_________________

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

Cichorei Kano wrote:In this case you propose, I would simply say this: what do the terms katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime really mean ?

Forget I ever said anything and I'll edit the post to be: Explain the difference of katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime to a beginner in Judo. Happy?

On a serious note, what the words mean I can only guess that kata-te-jime means one-handed choke, and okuri-eri-jime meaning sliding collar-choke. A more deeper understanding than that I do not know and unfortunately has not been tought to me. What Katanishi-sensei demonstrated was that an okuri-eri-jime performed with one hand was still okuri-eri-jime. "Koshi-jime" was okuri-eri-jime, "jigoku-jime" (with one hand) was okuri-eri-jime, and not kata-te-jime. This confuses me, as I previously thought all chokes of that kind using a single hand was kata-te-jime, but instead he said that using that side of your hand (the thumb side), grasping the collar and sliding across the throat to choke was okuri-er-jime. The chokes using one hand and using the outside of your hand (pinky side) made it Kata-te-jime. If you still dont understand what I am saying it is just me being piss poor at explaining

From your post I only learn one thing: That you know more Judo then me. Instead try to educate instead of mocking me for wanting to learn proper Judo, thanks

afulldeck wrote:If I understand you correctly, that would mean that Nami Jūji-jime would become Kata-te-jime and that Gyaku Jūji-jime would be Okuri-eri-jime, since your using the outside and inside of the wrist respectively. That makes no sense to me and it certainly would not simplify anything just cause more confusion.

No no no crossing your hands as in Juji-jime follows a completely different principle and does not apply for this situation. Imagine a sitation where you choke using only one hand. What determined the technique? Is koshi-jime really katate-jime or okuri-eri-jime for example.

Cichorei Kano wrote:In this case you propose, I would simply say this: what do the terms katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime really mean ?

Forget I ever said anything and I'll edit the post to be: Explain the difference of katate-jime and okuri-eri-jime to a beginner in Judo. Happy?

On a serious note, what the words mean I can only guess that kata-te-jime means one-handed choke, and okuri-eri-jime meaning sliding collar-choke. A more deeper understanding than that I do not know and unfortunately has not been tought to me. What Katanishi-sensei demonstrated was that an okuri-eri-jime performed with one hand was still okuri-eri-jime. "Koshi-jime" was okuri-eri-jime, "jigoku-jime" (with one hand) was okuri-eri-jime, and not kata-te-jime. This confuses me, as I previously thought all chokes of that kind using a single hand was kata-te-jime, but instead he said that using that side of your hand (the thumb side), grasping the collar and sliding across the throat to choke was okuri-er-jime. The chokes using one hand and using the outside of your hand (pinky side) made it Kata-te-jime. If you still dont understand what I am saying it is just me being piss poor at explaining

From your post I only learn one thing: That you know more Judo then me. Instead try to educate instead of mocking me for wanting to learn proper Judo, thanks

Rest assured that no one is trying to mock you. Solving a problem requires understanding it and getting to the core of it. Let's take it to a next level, and we thus assume that you are correctly relaying what Katanishi-sensei said, then it boils down to assessing the veracity of what he said. Again, I am not mocking you, but doing so would have better taken place on that tatami when he was saying that than here where he is not present. There is nothing wrong with starting an academic discourse on the tatami although some sensei may get defensive, just as well as some student might set an improper tone. Nevertheless at issue is what are his references to support what he is saying ? Why should one believe what he is saying ? I do not mean that in rhetorical sense, but seriously. I need to know what his sources are. Obviously the same issue would apply to me. Why should you believe what I say if I disagree with Katanishi-sensei. However, before we get to the latter, I think the proper way is to have his sources and have these sources assessed objectively and separately to see if these support his conclusion. Only then does it make sense for me provide counter-evidence. Without knowing specifically where he gets this idea from my information or sources would likely not be specific enough. If I have access to his sources I can in a far more focused way work towards the problem.

By the way, okuru does not mean 'to slide'. It's a mistake like there are many, a mistake that finds its origin in people not properly knowing Japanese, but trying to describe in English what they see and then concluding that the English term they used to describe the action would be the correct translation of the Japanese term. Another example of this is de-ashi-barai. The name of this throw is usually translated as "advancing foot sweep" or "forward foot sweep". Thousands of Western judoka believe that, yet it is complete nonsense. If that were the meaning of de-ashi-barai, then that would imply that you can perform de-ashi-barai only on a forwards stepping partner, since clearly a partner who is stepping backward has not foot advancing or coming forward. The 'de' in the name comes from 'deru' and refers to the departing foot without any indication as to what direction (forward, backward, sideways) that foot moves in. You may think that this is splitting hairs, but it isn't. It is a fundamental difference. Similarly, 'okuru' does not at all mean "to slide"; the Japanese word for "to slide" is actually 'suberu', not 'okuru'. What 'okuru' means is ... "to send something away", in this case, to send one lapel to the other one. It has nothing to do with either thumb or fingers being inside or not. In a standard okuri-eri-jime, the right thumb is inside uke's left lapel, and the left thumb inside uke's right lapel, no doubt about it; however, if uke is in yotsunbai (all fours, or in popular American terminology 'turtle position', and tori sits in front of uke, than okuri-eri-jime is typically performed by tori having the FINGERS of his right hand inside uke's right lapel, and his left fingers inside uke's left lapel. Both are clearly okuri-eri-jime. It has nothing to do with what finger is inside. In fact, if you could perform the same movement with your feet and toes, it still would be okuri-eri-jime. Also, if you do not grab any fingers inside the lapel but grab fabric together with all fingers, then it is still okuri-eri-jime. I think that this suffices as justification. Do understand that I am at this point not prepared to put a couple of hours into diving up the historical origins of this technique. If you want to do some of the work yourself I can put you up in the right direction. Professor Tôdô Yoshiaki has done a lot of work tracing back the Kôdôkan techniques which originate in Tenjin Shin'yô-ryû. There is a jûdô history book by him that contains a chapter on this, but I understand you may not have the book. Luckily, there are also a number of papers, and I'll provide the reference to you of one of them, which he co-authored with Murata from the Kôdôkan, namely:

In other words, it will boil down to what I have mentioned to your previously that it would boil down to, namely what reliable sources did Katanish-sensei provide to underpin his assertions ?

The problem is that most jûdôka simply do not have the background to start off a meaningful academic discourse with a sensei during such a clinic, or it is some kind of hostility which isn't the purpose of academic discourse either. Most jûdôka have trained and fought and that's a about it. Personally I don't think that it is a prerequisite to have encyclopedic knowledge in order to start a discourse; I think that a health sense of wondering is sufficient, but that too, I regret to say, becomes less and less apparent even in novice students these days.

_________________

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

Cichorei Kano wrote:In other words, it will boil down to what I have mentioned to your previously that it would boil down to, namely what reliable sources did Katanish-sensei provide to underpin his assertions ?

Even though it did not fully address my questions, I thank you for a lengty answer, the de-ashi-barai part was interesting. First I want to clarify a few things:

As Katanishi is a very respected sensei with the most beautifull Judo I've seen, I did not ask him for a source. But I believe he has his 7.dan from Kodokan? He lives in Switzerland at the moment but his background is from Tenri university.

There was no argument on the tatami. We where like family and everyone was happy. Hiroshi was educating us on how to classify ne-waza techniques that might might look unfamiliar, such as the ones I'm about to list below. To give us a rule of thumb and what to look for in the technique in order to give it a proper Kodokan name he spoke about the inside and outside of the hand as a general guideline.

This has nothing to do with the fingers being inside or outside, yet I understand your point about okuri-eri-jime from a reversed position. I believe Kyuzo Mifune called this particular variation tawara-jime.

I am still not sure what to believe. If I understood Katanishi correctly, all the below examples are choking with the sliding of the collar from one side to the other using only one hand. Does that make it okuri-eri-jime or kata-te-jime? Understanding this difference would be huge for me, as many sensei are teaching kata-te-jime just like the below examples.

If you could only answer these ones, I would be more than happy. Here are a few examples to make this brief:

Cichorei Kano wrote:In other words, it will boil down to what I have mentioned to your previously that it would boil down to, namely what reliable sources did Katanish-sensei provide to underpin his assertions ?

Even though it did not fully address my questions, I thank you for a lengty answer, the de-ashi-barai part was interesting. First I want to clarify a few things:

As Katanishi is a very respected sensei with the most beautifull Judo I've seen, I did not ask him for a source. But I believe he has his 7.dan from Kodokan? He lives in Switzerland at the moment but his background is from Tenri university.

There was no argument on the tatami. We where like family and everyone was happy. Hiroshi was educating us on how to classify ne-waza techniques that might might look unfamiliar, such as the ones I'm about to list below. To give us a rule of thumb and what to look for in the technique in order to give it a proper Kodokan name he spoke about the inside and outside of the hand as a general guideline.

This has nothing to do with the fingers being inside or outside, yet I understand your point about okuri-eri-jime from a reversed position. I believe Kyuzo Mifune called this particular variation tawara-jime.

I am still not sure what to believe. If I understood Katanishi correctly, all the below examples are choking with the sliding of the collar from one side to the other using only one hand. Does that make it okuri-eri-jime or kata-te-jime? Understanding this difference would be huge for me, as many sensei are teaching kata-te-jime just like the below examples.

If you could only answer these ones, I would be more than happy. Here are a few examples to make this brief:

Is this Kata-te-jime?

Is this Okuri-eri-jime?

Is this Okuri-eri-jime?

Is this Okuri-eri-jime?

Most of us know who Katanishi-sensei is and know about his exciting teaching and beautiful judo. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about a person's technical skills or even teaching skills. What you are raising is a historic-pedagogical matter, and I am not familiar with his eventual scholarly background in that field. Relevant data bases such as PubMed, SportsDiscus, ISI Web of Knowledge, or any other such relevant database do not list a single entry of published scholarly work by him in this area, so all I have is what you relayed to me. I would also suggest that the argument is dissociated from the person of Katanishi or anyone else. It isn' about the person of Katanishi. It's about a categorization irrespective of who made it.

I understand that you enjoyed the clinic and were all happy, but scientific discourse has nothing to do with being happy or not or with being family or not. It is centuries-old tested method of advancing understanding just like empirical research has advanced science. These are methods for example propagated during the Renaissance much against what is known as the "fallacy of authority", the later which is what was propagated in society, where the supposed truth was that what the church or the pope said. The earth was flat came from such a fallacy of authority, while Galileo through empirical evidence, analysis and argument questioned that view. Much of the history and activity in judo also has been guided by fallacy of authority which traditionally has been enacted primarily by the height of one's dan-rank. This clashes often with the scientific approach although it shouldn't since Kanô clearly stated that a major purpose of judo, including of its physical component was to develop intellect. Yet, in reality many in judo still struggle to accept or even to consider all kinds of errors in judo that were put in there by Kanô. Through his life, Kanô corrected some of these, but not all. There are errors in the biomechanics, errors in the pedagogy, etc. Some were unavoidable because the knowledge was not yet available, others because Kanô's grasp of science was limited. While there is ample evidence that Kanô studied the Chinese classics, and Stuart Mill and Dewey, I doubt that he studied Bernoulli yet Bernoulli lived in the 18th century thus his knowledge was available. I doubt that Kanô studied Borelli either and he lived even a century before Bernoulli. While it is often said that Kanô also "studied mathematics", the reality is that he took indeed a year of mathematics when ... he was ... 8 years old. Most of us would not refer to that as "having studied mathematics", but anyhow. My point simply is that Kanô scientific insights were limited which as led to all kinds of flaws. Kanô's strength was in education, which he approached socio-pedagogical point of view, while the majority of people who came after him do not even do that anymore and approach judo in a sports-mechanistic way.

Maybe you understood the term 'argument' as it is often used in American English as a hostile interchange of words. That is not how I meant it. I used it in its sense of presenting a scientific argument, a thesis, a dialectic interaction using analysis, synthesis, examination in order to advance truth. The fact that someone is a respected teacher should not preclude one from starting an academic discourse. On the contrary. I think that doing so would only deepen the respect and take it away from a more superficial reflection. I took only one class of economy at university, but when I took it, it was taught by ... our prime minister in function, each Saturday morning. Needless to say that the lecturing hall was packed each time. Clearly he was very respected. Most people don't get a such a chance as a student. That being said, it did not prevent anyone from starting a discourse. On the conrary. I took one class from a Nobel Prize winner. No doubt he was very respected. Did not preclude anyone from starting a discourse. Of course we were intimidated. After all, who were we ? But ultimately these people have a task and their task is to educate not to be deified. That education is much better realized when the learning is active and two-way, rather than passive. Discourse belongs in education, and Kanô made discourse or mondô 問答 one of the four essential teaching methods of jûdô (in addition to lecture, randori, and kata).

However, to be fair and somewhat more exhaustive, I should add that while teachers and professors generally appreciate discourse and questions, there are some caveats. The most common caveat is that the questions are questions not because of the interest of the student, but because he or she failed to do the necessary preparatory reading or was not listening. Teachers tend to react far less favorably to that kind of questions, for obvious reasons. Secondly, I understand that students may be very reluctant if they are intimidated by the teacher when they perceive a very large gap between their knowledge and his or hers. In that case it is up to the teachers to make their students feel comfortable and encourage questions and discourse. What students generally do not like very much is to made to look like retards in front of the entire class. So it has to come from both ways, but it is still easier to achiever in real life than for example on a forum. People who have been active on this forum or its predecessor for a long time are familiar with some of those things during forum discussions. Here too, discourse is usually appreciated, but one has to understand what discourse means. These forums have clearly shown what it is what it is not. When the sole or main purpose is to provoke or exhibit hostility, that is not discourse, even if it is initially veiled as discourse. I, and some senior posters tended to get irritated sometimes when a 'question' was asked that had no intention to call for an answer or to advance one's learning, but mainly to serve as flame bait or to preach one's views. There is nothing against preaching one's views, but one can simply do so without having to cover it up as a supposed question. On the tatami one has to be clear in understanding what discourse is. A tatami is a place for discourse, but it is not a place for materializing hostility or ridicule.

In any case, while I understand the pleasure you derived from the clinic, it doesn't really resolve your problem, which is the reason that I said that the issue would best have been raised during the clinic where the controversial approach was introduced than here on a forum where we have to second-guess. The problem is also that history shows that these kinds of discussion carry a high risk of derailing particularly from the moment someone feels provoked and throws in the usual flame bait that one is actually publicly criticizing someone else. It is for that reason that I really urge to always dissociate such a technical issue from the person.

Tawara-jime, nonconventional Kôdôkan terminology, is indeed a form of okuri-eri-jime.

I am coming back to your question in just a second. I notice that in providing background to your question you are talking again about 'sliding'. Once more, there is nothing 'sliding' about okuri-eri-jime anywhere in its terminology. I understand that many populist books may use this term, but as I have already explained, it's an error.

Now to get to your question, all four examples provided by you are examples of katate-jime. There is no okuri-eri-jime among them.

If you want me to specific related current Kôdôkan terminology to alternative historic terminology, then all of the following chokes are katate-jime:

- eri-jime (but in addition to being a form of katate-jime can also be ryōte-jime or tsukkomi-jime; it depends on the position of the hands)- hasami-jime- jigoku-jime- kakae-jime- ude-shibori-jime

Tomoe-jime may or not maybe katate-jime; it depends on the exact placement of the hands; in case it isn't katate-jime it is kata-jûji-jime; it depends, but none of them is okuri-eri-jime.

The one exception is koshi-jime, which can be either okuri-eri-jime or katate-jime. In fact, though more unusual, it is even possible for koshi-jime to be kataha-jime, sode-guruma-jime or one of the jûji-jime-henka. It is quite obvious that this is precisely the reason why the term koshi-jime was not retained as terminology by the Kôdôkan as it isn't very systematic and depending on how it is performed mixes several principles. Koshi-jime is more a descriptive position than that it is a principle of choking.

_________________

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

Cichorei Kano wrote:If you want me to specific related current Kôdôkan terminology to alternative historic terminology, then all of the following chokes are katate-jime:

- eri-jime (but in addition to being a form of katate-jime can also be ryōte-jime or tsukkomi-jime; it depends on the position of the hands)- hasami-jime- jigoku-jime- kakae-jime- ude-shibori-jime

Tomoe-jime may or not maybe katate-jime; it depends on the exact placement of the hands; in case it isn't katate-jime it is kata-jûji-jime; it depends, but none of them is okuri-eri-jime.

The one exception is koshi-jime, which can be either okuri-eri-jime or katate-jime. In fact, though more unusual, it is even possible for koshi-jime to be kataha-jime, sode-guruma-jime or one of the jûji-jime-henka. It is quite obvious that this is precisely the reason why the term koshi-jime was not retained as terminology by the Kôdôkan as it isn't very systematic and depending on how it is performed mixes several principles. Koshi-jime is more a descriptive position than that it is a principle of choking.

Once again, thank you for a very insightful post. I do not have time for a lengthy answer, as I write this in my job-break

It is quite clear that you have very good understanding of judo. My world was turned upside down by the notion from Katanishi about okuri-eri-jime, but thanks to this response its slowly turning back to normal. Next time i'll do a bit of research before jumping to conclusions. For me the best way of understanding these things is by mundo. We are all different, but for me I need to ask questions about certain situations to understand. Where do you learn all this? I would love to learn about what okuru means etc. Is there translated works that I can study?

He also mentioned two more things that was interesting. If this is correct or not, you be the judge, but I would love to hear your thoughts:

This was about ude-garami. He said that it is not the position of uke's arm, whether it is bent or straight, that determines if the technique is ude-garami, but the entanglement of tori's arm applying the technique. If uke is lying on his back with tori ontop in yoko-shiho-gatame (i.e. mune-gatame, a typical situation), tori can then perform a traditional ude-garami or gyaku-ude-garami (either way), but it is also ude-garami if uke straightens his arm, as long as tori still has his arms entangled like in a figure-four. Also Kannuki-gatame (either techi-waza or ne-waza?) is then ude-garami. On a sidenote: where does zempaku-gatame and kannuki-gatame come from and is it just the old name for ude-garami or different technique? And why is ude-garami not ude-hishigi?

In the situation of yoko-sankaku-jime where the choke cannot be applied with the legs because uke is strong etc., but he legs are locked in a sankaku-jime position, if tori applies a choke with a single arm beneath his leg the technique still becomes sankaku-jime because of the position they are in. If tori bends either of ukes arms in any kind of way it becomes ude-hishigi-sankaku-gatame, because of the position they are. So not ude-hishigi-te-gatame etc, even do you apply one arm vs. one arm bending action. Does the position dictate the classification or the exact application that led to submission? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

When I demonstrated an unusual ne-waza technique he named it O-hiza-gatame, is there history of judo using the term O- in any ne-waza techniques?

Kagato-jime (like gogoplata in BJJ). What is the history of this technique? Katanishi was not familiar with it, but I've seen black and white video of if being performed somewhere. It is an old technique. He said that the name was a bit problematic because you choke with your ashi-kubi (if i recall correctly), which is the front of the ankle and not kagato (the heel). Thoughts?

I´m also a bit short in time, but if you take a closer look at the official Kodokan video about Katame-waza and the proper names, you will find many answers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lIZyxdgJLs(you already posted the relevant part for okuri-eri-jime)

You will find out, that Katanishi is completely in line with the Kodokan classification of Ude-garami, which literally means "encircling of the arm", what doesn´t say anything if the arm is bent or straight. In Europe it´s common to call those versions of Ude-garami, where the straight arm is attacked as "kanuki-gatame", a term f.ex. used by Kawaishi. There are many confusions about the definition of Ude-garami when people started to define Ude-garami as "armlock against a bent arm", because this led to the idea, that every lock against a bent arm is ude-garami and people forgot, that the main point is the encircling of the arm. On top of this, people started to name "variations" of ude-garami, depending on different parts of the body, which are used. You can see such nonsensical example here: http://tsve-judo.de/bilder/pruefungsordnung/Ashi-garami.gif

Ashi-garami literally means "encircling of the leg", is not an arm- but a leglock, and is the last technique in Katame-no-Kata....

Another point is, that names of techniques derived from names of single techniques to names of groups of techniques. There are 12 "official" (names of) Shime-waza recognized by the Kodokan (http://Kodokan.org/e_waza/index.html#shimewaza). That does not mean, that there do not exist more techniques or names. Kodokan is very conservative with old names given by or given when Kano was still alive (they don´t drop these official names) and very passive to give new names. That´s why some name names of techniques were kind of "expanded" to include different other techniques which are considered to be "variations" and not separate techniques. One example of this is "te-guruma", which is considered to be a variation of sukui-nage.

Back to the clip of the official Katame-waza video.

Interesting variations of Okuri-eri-jime are shown from 41:00. You will find all the variations you mentioned, but you will also find a variation, which contradicts Katanishi and where Tori strangles with the little finger side. So it seems to me, that Katanishi provided something easy to memorize, but was not 100% accurate.

Katate-jime starts at 47:00 and again you will find an example which contradicts Katanishi, because the strangle is done with the thumb-side.

Okuri-eri-jime, as CK explained, literally means "strangling by pulling one collar to the other". Traditionally - see Katame-no-Kata - this is done with both hands on Ukes left and right collar. But you can do it also one-handed, if there is enough control over Uke´s´neck (like in "Koshi-jime").

"Kata" in Katate-jime means something like "one-sided" or "incomplete", what IMHO refers to an incomplete circle around Uke´s neck. The way of strangling therefore is different - it´s a direct pressure against the throat with the grip at the collar used as a fixed-point, which is not pulled across the throat to the other side.

My personal conclusion is, that it is not a question how Tori grips Ukes collar, but a question what the strangling hand does: if it pulls the collar towards the other side, it´s okuri-eri-jime, if it presses directly against the throat, it´s katata-jime.

Cichorei Kano wrote:If you want me to specific related current Kôdôkan terminology to alternative historic terminology, then all of the following chokes are katate-jime:

- eri-jime (but in addition to being a form of katate-jime can also be ryōte-jime or tsukkomi-jime; it depends on the position of the hands)- hasami-jime- jigoku-jime- kakae-jime- ude-shibori-jime

Tomoe-jime may or not maybe katate-jime; it depends on the exact placement of the hands; in case it isn't katate-jime it is kata-jûji-jime; it depends, but none of them is okuri-eri-jime.

The one exception is koshi-jime, which can be either okuri-eri-jime or katate-jime. In fact, though more unusual, it is even possible for koshi-jime to be kataha-jime, sode-guruma-jime or one of the jûji-jime-henka. It is quite obvious that this is precisely the reason why the term koshi-jime was not retained as terminology by the Kôdôkan as it isn't very systematic and depending on how it is performed mixes several principles. Koshi-jime is more a descriptive position than that it is a principle of choking.

Once again, thank you for a very insightful post. I do not have time for a lengthy answer, as I write this in my job-break

It is quite clear that you have very good understanding of judo. My world was turned upside down by the notion from Katanishi about okuri-eri-jime, but thanks to this response its slowly turning back to normal. Next time i'll do a bit of research before jumping to conclusions. For me the best way of understanding these things is by mundo. We are all different, but for me I need to ask questions about certain situations to understand. Where do you learn all this? I would love to learn about what okuru means etc. Is there translated works that I can study?

He also mentioned two more things that was interesting. If this is correct or not, you be the judge, but I would love to hear your thoughts:

This was about ude-garami. He said that it is not the position of uke's arm, whether it is bent or straight, that determines if the technique is ude-garami, but the entanglement of tori's arm applying the technique. If uke is lying on his back with tori ontop in yoko-shiho-gatame (i.e. mune-gatame, a typical situation), tori can then perform a traditional ude-garami or gyaku-ude-garami (either way), but it is also ude-garami if uke straightens his arm, as long as tori still has his arms entangled like in a figure-four. Also Kannuki-gatame (either techi-waza or ne-waza?) is then ude-garami. On a sidenote: where does zempaku-gatame and kannuki-gatame come from and is it just the old name for ude-garami or different technique? And why is ude-garami not ude-hishigi?

In the situation of yoko-sankaku-jime where the choke cannot be applied with the legs because uke is strong etc., but he legs are locked in a sankaku-jime position, if tori applies a choke with a single arm beneath his leg the technique still becomes sankaku-jime because of the position they are in. If tori bends either of ukes arms in any kind of way it becomes ude-hishigi-sankaku-gatame, because of the position they are. So not ude-hishigi-te-gatame etc, even do you apply one arm vs. one arm bending action. Does the position dictate the classification or the exact application that led to submission? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

When I demonstrated an unusual ne-waza technique he named it O-hiza-gatame, is there history of judo using the term O- in any ne-waza techniques?

Kagato-jime (like gogoplata in BJJ). What is the history of this technique? Katanishi was not familiar with it, but I've seen black and white video of if being performed somewhere. It is an old technique. He said that the name was a bit problematic because you choke with your ashi-kubi (if i recall correctly), which is the front of the ankle and not kagato (the heel). Thoughts?

You ask many questions, but they all reflect a certain way of thinking, a way that does not parallel Kôdôkan's pedagogical approach. Wdax has explained this already and so have I. Kôdôkan for pedagogical reasons, divides shime-waza in to 12 principles, and kansetsu-waza in 10 principles. There are obviously unlimited ways of applying those principles within each group. What you are doing is a different approach, namely to adhere to an unlimited number of names that are not specific to a principle or group of techniques but to a specific technique, with as consequence that many people will not know unless they have at least the same encyclopedic knowledge and memory as you do.

While some of your questions are interesting, providing an in-depth answer would take many hours. I am also not sure about the sense of it, since you could repeat the same question for dozens more of names which almost no one knows. As a scholar I obviously do not reject knowledge, but you also have to understand that it is practically not possible for us to simply devote all the time to it. I would firstly repeat again, why did you not ask all those questions to Katanishi-sensei when he was teaching ? After all, people probably also paid him for his time ? I do not mean this in a condescending or arrogant way. I am very serious. If one is paid for his time, and this takes a lot of time, it does not really matter much what precisely that time is spent to doing. I would also suggest that if you insist you want to know answers to all those questions that you first do all the background reading and research, explain which sources you have consulted, what they say, reference them, and then come back to us and write it all out, and I will be more than willing to then correct it and here and there provide notes.

I will briefly address some of the issues you raise. There are flaws in the categorization of Kôdôkan, which I have already explained. The flaws have sometimes serious effects when the people who work with them do not fully understand their historic and pedagogical framework. A classical example of this is the gokyô where for many years Westerners have complained that it is wrong because certain techniques in lower kyô are more difficult to carry out than some techniques in higher kyô. Sure, but that is missing the point since the gokyô is based on progressive difficulty of ukemi, not on carrying out the throw. But, if you do not know that, well, then yes, there clearly is a problem in understanding.

I. The situation with ude-garami is somewhat more complicated. The kanji for ude-garami is 腕緘. The second kanji or karamu originates in the Chinese word jiān. This word means to seal or to close. The meaning is preserved in Japanese where the kanji is normally pronounced in its On-pronunciation as kan, or in its Kun-pronunciation as either kan suru or to jiru. The kanji is not commonly pronounced karamu. Since the term really means to seal or to close, really in that sense ude-garami simply means "arm-lock" However, Karamu is in fact commonly written 絡these days. Written like that, the term means as Wdax says 'entanglement', but I don't think that it is the best translation. It means really 'to entwine' or 'to coil around'. But ... that is not the end of the story. What does this mean ? Does this mean that from the point you wrap your arms around someone's arm that it is then ude-garami ? Clearly not. While it is true that in ashi-garami, your leg is really coiled around your opponent's leg, I have also already indicated that there are flaws in the categorization of judo. One thing that is essential is that ude-garami is not an armbar, but a principle of performing armbars. It is a GROUP of techniques, that is opposed to the only other group of armbars in judo shiai, namely those that achieve the lock through overstretching or ude-hishigi. The group classification takes priority over the specific name. When I learn jûdô as a kyû-rank holder, performing an armbar with the same grip on a stretched arm was commonly referred to as ude-garami. The logic was like wdax explained. However, this approach is erroneous. Performing the armbar in that way cannot possibly put it in the group of techiques that is taken up by ude-garami since the arm is over-stretched. It is therefore a ude-hishigi or overstretching. Since this takes priority and since in the group of overstretchings there is no ude-garami it is not possible that this armbar is ude-garami. The armbar therefore is ude-hishigi-te-gatame. I realize that it may say something different in various books and texts, but that is not my problem. Most judo books and texts are full of nonsense, but they work fine if one does not know it is nonsense.

At issue is what is shown in the Kôdôkan video at 55'20" and at 56'08" demonstrated by Sameshima-sensei from the Kôdôkan, and also at 57'49" by Sekine-sensei; people thus have to be patient. The same is in a pretty good newaza book written by one of my sensei, Marcel Clause. Unfortunately, it is an error, and this lock should now be categorized under ude-hishigi-te-gatame. As you can understand, because of the prevalence of the error in numerous publications errors are common. Westerners exaggerate in the impact of this. If this is an issue at an exam, one simply explains the problem and go to the next one. A person doing this or that isn't exactly exhibiting a gross deficiency of lack of judo skills, so I do not see the problem. In shiai it matters even less. When you win, you win, period.

Kannuki-gatame is NOT ude-garami, but is ude-hishigi-te-gatame. 'Kannuki' 閂 means to bar or bolt, like the latch on a door. The name simply comes from old days when unlike what we are doing here, things did not have a real name one had to learn, but sensei simply 'described' what they were doing. People may use different words to describe something. Hence ... why you also have people saying ryôte-jime or morote-jime for the same thing. 'Double-handed' or 'two-handed' after all describe the same although they are a different term. When you just describe something you can choose either, but when a name is determined, you no longer can't.

'Zenpaku-gatame' is a similar case. 'Zenpaku', written 前膊 simply means 'forearm'. Thus it describes control of the forearm without specifying what happens with it. Strictly speaking as description, zenpaku-gatame can bridge both ude-garami and te-gatame depending on what variation is done.

Why is ude-garami not ude-hishigi ? Because it is a different group. There are only two groups of armbars in shiai judo today, namely:

1. ude-garami (in this group there is only one a principle: ude-garami)2. ude-hishigi (in this group there are nine principles)

There exists a third group, but it is considered separate from armbars, namely wristlocks, and it is normally omitted since they are not allowed in shiai. This group is called kote-hishigi. This is however very interesting to point out the anomalies in judo classification. Kote-hishigi clearly means wrist-overstretching, however, both forms contained in this hishigi group, are in fact wrist-twists (the kote-hineri and kote-gaeshi). As strange as that may sound, it isn't. After all in our daily speech people are wrong about using several of those concepts too. If you study anatomy or biomechanics you would learn that bending a wrist and stretching a wrist are two different things, but often the terms are misapplied by lay people.

II. Your next question is fairly easy. It obviously depends on whether you force your opponent to submit by armbar or by choke since one of the names you mention is a choke, but the other one an armbar. It may also be possible instead of doing either to do both at the same time and simultaneously make him pass out and break his arm. It is then not A or B, but A and B simultaneously. It cannot be te-gatame, as the principle of te is considered only in the absence of a triangle, so Katanishi-sensei, or at least the way you relay what he has said, reflects a view that is correct.

III. Ô-hiza-gatame. Again, there is a difference between Japanese 'describing' a technique an 'naming' a technique. Westerners will not pick up of the difference and consider a description a name. Since most names originate in descriptions, the error is understandable. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no katame-waza in Kôdôkan where the term 'Ô' is used as in large 大. Clearly, there are unusual techniques that have the sound 'O' or 'Ô' in it, like for example Ōten-gatame, but this is an entirely different word and has nothing to do with it.

IV. Kakato-jime. Your response relaying what Katanishi-sensei apparently explained is correct. The term kakato-jime is not commonly used in jûdô and the choke for which it is usually used as Katanishi-sensei points out does not use the heel anywhere but uses the ankle or ashi-kubi (ashi-kubi is not just the front of the ankel [shin part] but the entire 360°; it clearly is very different from the heel). Because of this issue, I find the way it is used these days historically not credible. It seems that the term rather than by jûdôka is used by BJJ-ers and MMA-ers where unlike in jûdô the main rationale behind names is not pedagogy and where they are fond of as many as possible different and exotic sounding names. I do not know the history behind this issue off the top of my head and would need to look it up. Oda Jôin's "Jûdô Taikan" would probably be my first place to look for it.

_________________

"The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)"Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)"Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)"I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

Cichorei Kano wrote:(...) There are flaws in the categorization of Kôdôkan (...)

That´s why I need to make a remark about my post: I was writing about the definitions of Kodokan, not commenting, if they are IMHO 100% accurate.

But the problem is very simple to describe.

When names evolve from names of techniques to names of principle - that´s what happened over the years - it will result in overlapping principles if you do not drop some names. When discussing "new" names from the 1950 to the 1980s the Kodokan for some good reasons kept on using all names, that where given by or with consent of Jigoro Kano, or where commonly used. The logic result was overlapping definitions of principles, what made a decision necessary about the "correct" classification of certain techniques.

Look at the names of Kansetsu-waza.

Some names were given according to the part of Tori´s body, which is used to controll Uke´s Ellbow (Te-gatame, Hara-gatame, Hiza-gatame etc.). Others were given according to the relative position of Tori´s and Uke´s body (Juji-gatame) or by a specific configuration of Toris leg (sankaku-gatame).

It is completely impossible to avoid overlapping definitions, if you do not have stringent criteria, to destinguish between them. That´s why we will never have a constistant classification of techniques based on their official names.